In addition, the Senate bill requires the submission of a basic plan, an annual plan and a long-range plan for each of these titles. The administration proposal would have a single plan from each State covering all aspects of the single title and program. Now, these are the basic differences. There are some other differences. For example, the Senate bill does provide that in the area of institutional programs and programs for the physically handicapped that the State must continue to spend at the level of its expenditure for these programs in fiscal year 1971. In our plan, we do protect the physically handicapped with the maintenance of effort requirement, but we do not have it for institutional support. We would also note that all the plans, of course, under the Senate bill must receive Commissioner approval. Under our bill, we have what is known as a basic plan which has the more routine aspects of assurances that the State will comply with the regulations and conditions. The long-range plan which is to be developed under our program would be worked out in consultation with the Commissioner but would not receive a separate stamp of approval by the Commissioner. I think these are the essential differences. Mr. HANSEN. What change in the Senate bill as it stands now should be made to make it acceptable to the administration? Mr. ALFORD. I believe that we would emphasize certainly the two aspects of greater consolidation and the elimination of the numerous plans which have to be approved by the Commissioner under the Senate bill. For example, mention was made earlier of the construction provision. We were very much tempted to provide for a separate construction title for the reason that we frequently find it is useful in the budgeting context to hold down on construction where conditions warrant. But, in following the principle that we are operating under, that we wanted to give greater flexibility to the States, we felt that it was appropriate to include construction in the single title. We feel there are some States that would perhaps have different priorities in the relationship between construction funds and the needs for particular services. We find it perfectly reasonable that they should have the authority to do this. On the plan approval process and number of plans, we just think that the experience in the past has shown that these led essentially to a redtape paperwork operation which is really not productive in any program sense. We would be much better off in approving the single rather simple assurance type of plan and work on a program basis in developing long-range programs and more effective programs with the States. We think we could use our personnel more effectively along these lines. Mr. HANSEN. Thank you very much. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. BRADEMAS. Thank you very much, Mr. Lamkin, and Mr. Alford and Mr. Fry. We appreciate your being with us this morning and giving us your very helpful testimony. Mr. LAMKIN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. BRADEMAS. Our next two witnesses are Mr. Keith Doms and Because, gentlemen, we are anxious to complete these hearings today, there remains 1 hour and there are two other witnesses, the chair would like to suggest that if it is agreeable with you, that your statements be inserted as if read in the record and perhaps you would be kind enough to summarize your principal points with respect to the legislation before us, and that will enable us to put some questions to you. STATEMENT OF KEITH DOMS, DIRECTOR, FREE LIBRARY OF PHILADELPHIA Mr. Doмs. Mr. Chairman and Mr. Hansen, while I would like to respond to your suggestion as much as possible, I am here in a unique position. My name is Keith Doms. I am vice president and president-elect of the American Library Association, and director of the Free Library of Philadelphia. I am the immediate past chairman of the ALA Coordinating Committee on Library Service to the Disadvantaged. Currently, I am a member of the Pennsylvania advisory council on titles III, ÏV-A, and IV-B under the Library Services and Construction Act. Today I am representing the American Library Association, a nonprofit educational organization of approximately 30,000 members devoted to the purpose of developing public, school, college, and other types of libraries throughout the Nation. The American Library Association strongly supports legislation to extend and amend the Library Services and Construction Act. A 5year extension of the LSCA, which expires June 30, 1971, is essential if the United States hopes to provide adequate library facilities, resources, and services for its citizens in the decade of the seventies. Under the stimulation of Federal funds-matched by State and community funds in a ratio of 3 to 1-85 million people across this country have benefited from new or improved library services since the original passage of this act in 1956. On the national level, because of LSCA, 1,500 public library buildings were constructed from 1965 to 1969 to serve 50 million people. The $135 million of Federal funds used for this construction were matched by $326 million in State and local funds. To dramatize the benefits of this act on the State level: in my own State of Pennsylvania, for example, 56 projects under title II were realized between 1964 and 1970. With new buildings, or replacement of inadequate quarters, or improved facilities, close to 1,800,000 Pennsylvanians benefited from construction money in those 6 years. Of the $20 million in total construction costs for new and renovated libraries in Pennsylvania, approximately $8 million were Federal dollars ($12 million constituted State and local matching money). How has this Federal aid helped in large metropolitan areas? In Philadelphia we established a reader development program to provide up-to-date pertinent materials for adults who are semiliterate and who have only a grade school reading ability but need information on consumers' goods, nutrition, and a wide variety of other important matters. In fiscal 1969, 75,500 pieces of material on these subjects were circulated through 126 agencies cooperating with the library and working directly with these disadvantaged adults. Eight new branch libraries were built with the use of LSCA funds in eight areas of the city of Philadelphia where the people previously had no library. A regional film center, located in Philadelphia and administered by the Free Library, funded by LSCA and serving all of eastern Pennsylvania, circulated educational films for 37,000 showings attended by 1,874,800 persons in fiscal 1969-70. A new package-program of specialized library service coordinated with the Model Cities program is now getting underway in Philadelphia. This includes mobile units, a library service and abstracting unit as part of a community information center and data bank, and the use of community personnel in the operation of the services. Such projects in Philadelphia are only examples of similar programs in other urban areas of the Nation-all made possible by the stimulation of LSCA funds. Neither these accomplishments nor the promise held out for the millions of still unreached should be wasted away by failure to extend this legislation. It has been an invaluable concept and support for the people of all ages and education and cultural levels and in aiding librarians to serve them. Urban and rural communities from coast to coast have benefited. The funds have been well used. But the needs still existing are very real, very vital. And the deficits and gaps still existing between present conditions and adequate conditions call for continuing work. More books are needed to keep up with the population and information explosions. Americans were borrowing 3 million books daily from their public libraries in 1968. To meet the increasing needs of the 1970's, public library collections must be increased substantially. For 1970, the estimated deficit is 357 million volumes, or slightly below 50 percent of recognized requirements (3.5 volumes per capita). While students use public libraries significantly, we are also talking here about millions of citizens engaged in purely self-educating endeavors. This is encouraging and timely in an age when the traditional patterns of formalized education are merging more and more with the public availability of information and opinion through multiple means. There is already a shortage of personnel in our metropolitan libraries, and because of the lack of funds for staffing these systems, further deficiencies can be expected. Of 1,102 authorized staff positions in the public library system of Philadelphia, for example, 189 were unfilled as of August this year because of metropolitan fiscal problems, now all too typical across the Nation. More regional library centers must be established. Of the 67 counties in Pennsylvania, the people in 31 of them had no county or regional library service as recently as 1968. More films are needed. In Philadelphia, the regional film center (already mentioned as serving the eastern half of the State) needs 7,500 prints to keep up with the demand. It now has less than 1,500. And there are some 1112 million people in Pennsylvania. The western half of the State is served from Pittsburgh-with an equivalent gap between resources and demand. Additional materials are needed for the physically handicapped. National estimates are that there will be 2,250,000 of these persons by fiscal 1971. They need talking books, braille books, page turners, and other special materials for reading. With the fiscal 1971 budget recommendation only 70,000 of these people can be served. The situation in Pennsylvania is no better. For the record, I should like to submit a statement detailing the equally dire lack of library service to persons in State-supported institutions in Pennsylvania. For all of these reasons, we urge the extension of the Library Services and Construction Act for another 5-year term, with increased funding each year. A key element in continuing the progress made under LSCA grants thus far is the continued encouragement of interlibrary cooperation— at the local, State, regional, and interstate level. Such cooperation and mutual planning guarantee more efficient and more equitable improvement for all patrons in need of library services and resources. It is recommended, therefore, that title III be continued in its present form, with 100 percent Federal funding. The legislation should also serve to support the priority which the American Association of State Libraries places on strengthening State libraries and strengthening metropolitan libraries serving as resource centers, under title I. At the annual conference of the American Library Association in Detroit this past July, it was voted that the association establish an office for library service to the disadvantaged and unserved. This new office will help implement ALA's long-standing goal of reaching out to the entire community. In view of this action, the strongest recommendation I would like to leave with this committee is the need for high priority attention to be given to library service to the disadvantaged. An important breakthrough has now been made in this area. In Philadelphia we see it in the construction and rehabilitation of library buildings in inner city neighborhoods. We see it in the growing outreach of our reader development program. We see it in our unfolding projects in cooperation with the model cities program. We see it in the acquisition of all kinds of special and relevant materials, including materials in Spanish. We are now reaching persons never before served. The American people have benefited significantly from what Congress has provided in previous LSCA legislation. This work must not only go forward: it must be given increased support and attention. I thank the committee for the privilege of testifying here today on these matters of such importance to the welfare of the people of the United States. (The attachments referred to follow :) LIBRARY SERVICE INSTITUTIONS-PENNSYLVANIA There are over 90 State-supported institutions in Pennsylvania. In 1968, not five of those institutions had a library program worthy of the name. The descriptions below explain the situation : 1. A prison reported 14,000 volumes. About 10.000 were fiction. Of that number, over 8.000 were women's novels with pre-1950 publication dates (some as far back as 1890) and as many as 10 copies of some titles. The small amount of non-fiction was largely sets of fiction (Dickens, Kipling. etc.). A Television Today dated 1936 is representative of the actual non-fiction books. 2. A mental hospital has a small building which is a combination canteen and library. The collection of materials is not bad, but it is only available to residents able to walk over, probably less than 5 percent. 3. A home for the elderly has a book collection of about 10.000 volumes. 90 percent of the books are either sets (Dickens. Kipling, etc.) in the small print of the early 1900s or books copyrighted before 1890 (memorial gifts for servicemen of the Civil War). 4. A youth institution has a library, an empty room with 14 books, their ESEA Title II books from the previous year. These are not loaned out so they will not be lost. 5. A hospital for crippled children (65 percent in bed throughout their stay) has book stacks 7 feet tall, and so close together that a wheelchair cannot be maneuvered conveniently. & A rehabilitation center with a large percentage of the population having some type of physical disability has 8 foot stacks, 2 areas that are too close to walk between to get at the shelves and practically no materials in the areas of the program of the institution. Most institutions had no materials at all, or a motley collection of gifts stacked wherever there are shelves, or materials only available to a small segment of the population. The picture has changed somewhat today. There are perhaps 10 institutions out of the total of 90 which have adequate library programs which will get better There are another 20 in process of improvement. But, there is still a great deal to be done. Title IV of LSCA has the responsibility for the development of library service to Pennsylvania residents who are outside the normal service responsibility of the libraries specifically mentioned in LSCA Titles I-III. The residents of Statesupported institutions and non-institutionalized blind and physically handicapped are the specific residents mentioned in the Act. At present, due to the small amount of funds available, no direct grants are being made from the program. The present funds are being used to support Statewide service in the following areas: 1. Consultant aid in the development of libraries and library programs. 2. Development of certain central collection services. 3. In-service education of untrained and partially trained personnel with responsibility for library management. 4. Coordination of agencies, organizations and groups concerned with these aspects of library service. 5. Liaison with agencies, organizations, groups and libraries concerned with the provision of library services to these patrons. These areas and others which are presently involved in various aspects of work of the Special Library Service Division staff are being met to a greater or lesser extent. As the library service to these patrons improves, this constantly changing library program will alter its approach to reflect current needs and development. BIOGRAPHICAL DATA OF KEITH DOMS Born April, 1920, Endeavor. Wisconsin. Married to the former Margaret Taylor: two sons, David L., age 14, and Peter E.. age 17. Veteran, World War II. Present position: Director, Free Library of Philadelphia. 1969 to date. Director, Carnegie Library of Pittsburgh, 1964-1969; Associate Director, 1963-1964; Assistant Director, 1956–1963. |